IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v83y2019icp83-91.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From paper to plastic: Understanding the impact of eWIC on WIC recipient behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Hanks, Andrew S.
  • Gunther, Carolyn
  • Lillard, Dean
  • Scharff, Robert L.

Abstract

Evidence shows that the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is underutilized. WIC enrolls 52.7% of eligible persons and participants claim a fraction of available benefits. Researchers suggest that people underutilize WIC because of the time needed to enroll in and use WIC and because participants may believe that, if others notice them participating in WIC, community members will stigmatize them. Recently enacted policies may reduce both time costs and potential for stigma associated with WIC. Congress mandated that, by 2020, all states disburse WIC benefits through an Electronic Benefits Transfer (eWIC) system. Given that eWIC reduces the time required for each transaction and and makes it more difficult to identify beneficiaries, we expect WIC redemptions to increase. In addition, eWIC might also increase the chance WIC recipients choose non-WIC foods for redemption increasing non-WIC expenditures. To measure the impact of eWIC on WIC redemptions and non-WIC food expenditures we analyze data on grocery expenditures of 11,887 WIC-participating households in one state over the period it implemented eWIC. We find that, after beneficiaries began redeeming WIC benefits through eWIC, spending on non-WIC eligible foods did not change but redemptions of WIC benefits increased.

Suggested Citation

  • Hanks, Andrew S. & Gunther, Carolyn & Lillard, Dean & Scharff, Robert L., 2019. "From paper to plastic: Understanding the impact of eWIC on WIC recipient behavior," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 83-91.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:83:y:2019:i:c:p:83-91
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.12.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919218304895
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.12.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gundersen, Craig & Jolliffe, Dean & Tiehen, Laura, 2009. "The challenge of program evaluation: When increasing program participation decreases the relative well-being of participants," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 367-376, August.
    2. Hilary W. Hoynes & Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, 2009. "Consumption Responses to In-Kind Transfers: Evidence from the Introduction of the Food Stamp Program," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(4), pages 109-139, October.
    3. Lentz, Erin C. & Barrett, Christopher B., 2013. "The economics and nutritional impacts of food assistance policies and programs," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 151-163.
    4. Ted Joyce & Andrew Racine & Cristina Yunzal-Butler, 2008. "Reassessing the WIC effect: Evidence from the Pregnancy Nutrition Surveillance System," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 277-303.
    5. Hoynes, Hilary & Page, Marianne & Stevens, Ann Huff, 2011. "Can targeted transfers improve birth outcomes?: Evidence from the introduction of the WIC program," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7-8), pages 813-827, August.
    6. Lee, Bong Joo & Mackey-Bilaver, Lucy, 2007. "Effects of WIC and Food Stamp Program participation on child outcomes," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 501-517, April.
    7. Hoynes, Hilary & Page, Marianne & Stevens, Ann Huff, 2011. "Can targeted transfers improve birth outcomes?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 813-827.
    8. Rossin-Slater, Maya, 2013. "WIC in your neighborhood: New evidence on the impacts of geographic access to clinics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 51-69.
    9. Yen, Steven T., 2010. "The effects of SNAP and WIC programs on nutrient intakes of children," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 576-583, December.
    10. Christina Robinson, 2013. "Younger Siblings Can Be Good for Your Health: An Examination of Spillover Benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 172-184, June.
    11. Grindal, Todd & Wilde, Parke & Schwartz, Gabe & Klerman, Jacob & Bartlett, Susan & Berman, Danielle, 2016. "Does food retail access moderate the impact of fruit and vegetable incentives for SNAP participants? Evidence from western Massachusetts," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 59-69.
    12. Jackson, Margot I., 2015. "Early childhood WIC participation, cognitive development and academic achievement," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 145-153.
    13. Marianne P. Bitler & Janet Currie, 2005. "Does WIC work? The effects of WIC on pregnancy and birth outcomes," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 73-91.
    14. repec:wly:soecon:v:82:4:y:2016:p:1106-1122 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Ted Joyce & Diane Gibson & Silvie Colman, 2005. "The changing association between prenatal participation in WIC and birth outcomes in New York City," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(4), pages 661-685.
    16. Rosenberg, T.J. & Alperen, J.K. & Chiasson, M.A., 2003. "Why do WIC participants fail to pick up their checks? An urban study in the wake of welfare reform," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(3), pages 477-481.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Junzhou Zhang & Yuping Liu-Thompkins, 2024. "Personalized email marketing in loyalty programs: The role of multidimensional construal levels," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 196-216, January.
    2. M. Taha Kasim & Benjamin Ukert, 2021. "The impact of WIC participation on tobacco use and alcohol consumption," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(3), pages 608-625, July.
    3. Katherine Meckel, 2020. "Is the Cure Worse Than the Disease? Unintended Effects of Payment Reform in a Quantity-Based Transfer Program," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(6), pages 1821-1865, June.
    4. Li, Xuemei & Saitone, Tina L. & Sexton, Richard J., 2022. "Impacts of Electronic Benefit Transfer on the Women, Infants and Children Program: Evidence from Oklahoma," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 47(2), May.
    5. repec:ags:aaea22:335863 is not listed on IDEAS

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew S. Hanks & Carolyn Gunther & Dean Lillard & Robert L. Scharff, 2018. "From Paper to Plastic: Understanding the Impact of eWIC on WIC Recipient Behavior," NBER Working Papers 25131, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Hanks, Andrew S. & Gunther, Carolyn & Lillard, Dean & Scharff, Robert L., 2016. "From Paper to Plastic: Understanding the Impact of EBT on WIC Recipient Behavior," 2017 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 6-8, 2017, Chicago, Illinois 251834, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Manan Roy, 2012. "Identifying the Effect of WIC on Infant Health When Participation is Endogenous and Misreported," Departmental Working Papers 1202, Southern Methodist University, Department of Economics.
    4. Haeck, Catherine & Lefebvre, Pierre, 2016. "A simple recipe: The effect of a prenatal nutrition program on child health at birth," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 77-89.
    5. Brent Kreider & John V. Pepper & Manan Roy, 2020. "Does The Women, Infants, And Children Program Improve Infant Health Outcomes?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(4), pages 1731-1756, October.
    6. Kreider, Brent & Pepper, John V. & Roy, Manan, 2018. "Does the Women, Infants, and Children Program (WIC) Improve Infant Health Outcomes?," ISU General Staff Papers 201805010700001055, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    7. Hope Corman & Dhaval Dave & Nancy E. Reichman, 2018. "Evolution of the Infant Health Production Function," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 85(1), pages 6-47, July.
    8. Irma Arteaga & Colleen Heflin & Sarah Parsons, 2019. "Design Flaws: Consequences of the Coverage Gap in Food Programs for Children at Kindergarten Entry," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(2), pages 265-283, June.
    9. Monica Harber Carney, 2021. "The impact of mental health parity laws on birth outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(4), pages 748-765, April.
    10. Yan, Ji, 2022. "Is WIC effective in improving pregnancy-related outcomes? An empirical reassessment," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    11. Rossin-Slater, Maya, 2013. "WIC in your neighborhood: New evidence on the impacts of geographic access to clinics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 51-69.
    12. Martha J Bailey & Hilary Hoynes & Maya Rossin-Slater & Reed Walker, 2024. "Is the Social Safety Net a Long-Term Investment? Large-Scale Evidence From the Food Stamps Program," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 91(3), pages 1291-1330.
    13. Bolbocean, Corneliu & Tylavsky, Frances A., 2021. "The impact of safety net programs on early-life developmental outcomes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    14. Li, Xuemei & Saitone, Tina L. & Sexton, Richard J., 2022. "Impacts of Electronic Benefit Transfer on the Women, Infants and Children Program: Evidence from Oklahoma," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 47(2), May.
    15. Verónica Amarante & Marco Manacorda & Edward Miguel & Andrea Vigorito, 2016. "Do Cash Transfers Improve Birth Outcomes? Evidence from Matched Vital Statistics, Program, and Social Security Data," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 1-43, May.
    16. M. Taha Kasim & Benjamin Ukert, 2021. "The impact of WIC participation on tobacco use and alcohol consumption," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(3), pages 608-625, July.
    17. Katherine Meckel, 2020. "Is the Cure Worse Than the Disease? Unintended Effects of Payment Reform in a Quantity-Based Transfer Program," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(6), pages 1821-1865, June.
    18. Di Fang & Michael R. Thomsen & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Aaron M. Novotny, 2019. "WIC Participation and Relative Quality of Household Food Purchases: Evidence from FoodAPS," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(1), pages 83-105, July.
    19. Duque, Valentina & Rosales-Rueda, Maria & Sanchez, Fabio, 2019. "How Do Early-Life Shocks Interact with Subsequent Human Capital Investments? Evidence from Administrative Data," Working Papers 2019-17, University of Sydney, School of Economics.
    20. Valizadeh, Pourya & Smith, Travis A., 2018. "Distributional Impacts of WIC on Dietary Quality of Children: Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Design," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273904, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    WIC; Food insecurity; Low-income; Electronic benefits transfer (EBT); Transaction costs; Assistance programs; Social benefits; Stigma; Redemptions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:83:y:2019:i:c:p:83-91. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.